In Theatres, PG-13, 126 minutes
With J. J. Abrams at the helm, Star Trek makes the hyperjump from philosophicial sci-fi to brainless action adventure. If we were talking TV, that’d been a loss, but in the multiplex it’s just want the doctor ordered. The plot is a bit convoluted, dictated by the employment of time travel as a significant device, and borrows heavily from Top Gun (which I’m sure borrowed heavily itself), but what the plot lacks, the characters more than make up for.
Chris Pine is a cocky, go-it-alone maverick James T. Kirk drafted to Starfleet on the hope that he can be the commander his father died being. Zachary Quinto, so good as Skylar on TV’s Heroes, is equally impressive as a young Spock wrestling to keep his emotions at bay. Simon Pegg (Hott Fuzz) is uproarious and perfect casting as chief engineer Scotty, and Carl Urban breathes life into Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy. The character of Nyoto Uhura is expanded and played by Zoe Saldana (enchanting in Guess Who?) as the lady Spock has and Kirk wants. Speaking of ladies, one thing this version gets right is that Kirk loves ‘em, and not just the earthlings aptly demonstrated when he gets it on with a green-skinned, purple-lipped Rachel Nichols. Leonard Nimoy, Winona Ryder, Eric Bana, and Bruce Greenwood round out the cast.
Abrams, who’s track record on the big screen is mixed (MI:3, very good; Cloverfield, pretty bad), churns out something akin to a Spielberg/Lucas venture. While things stay a tad cheesy, and every time there’s a decision between a bigger effect or more realism he grabs effect, his only aim here is popcorn entertainment, and it comes through there with spades. The special effects are solid if not groundbreaking. The look of the film is shiny and new, reminiscent more of Starship Troopers (without the fascist overtones) than any previous Trek work. If every blockbuster this season is this entertaining, it'll be a good summer. B+
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Star Trek B+
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Was "just what the doctor ordered" intended?
I hope to see this tomorrow.
For the record, Abrams only produced Cloverfield, which was directed by someone named Matt Reeves. Unfortunately, Reeves has been handed the directorial chair for the American remake of our beloved Let the Right One In.
intended. that's what i get from operating from memory and not imdb'ing. that is a travesty (concerning LTROI). if there's one thing cloverfield proved it was that the director had not clue on how to create a sympathetic character, let alone a sympathetic vampire.
B+ for me as well, but sinking to a B the more I think about it. Much of it makes no sense (How did Scotty get off that moon/planet in the context of the original series? What are the odds that Kirk would run into the cave where Old Spock has been hanging out for years? What happened to that thing they made Pike swallow? Etc.)
And the screenwriters did get this right: the time-travelling device is cheating.
That said, I was very entertained and the performances were far better that the usual space fantasy/adventure. The first half was better than the second half, which was over-stuffed with action sequences.
BTW, Lawyer is going to hate this.
yeah there are tons of plot holes. can it be that hard to find out a girl's first name if you're going to school with her? hooking up with her roommate? on the same ship with her? and once you open up the time travel possibility, well then you can just forever go back and destroy then un-destry planets, etc.... it's sunk for me as well, although still enjoyable. if you want some thing that will really sink, watch wolverine. it's dropped to a C in the time sense i watched it (still haven't finished the review)
I cannot stand science fiction (I grant an exception to Kubrick films). Sorry. I have never watched a Star Trek movie and only watched a part of one of the tv episodes when I was a kid, which I immediately deemed dumb. Plus, Quinto's nostrils are scary.
You should give Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan a shot. (You don't need to see the first one) If you don't like that one, you won't like any of them. Although Star Trek IV is a pretty great fish out of water story.
Houseguest is the only fish out of water story I need to see. Sinbad is as close to a Klingon as I get.
this star trek is about as much science fiction as the first three star wars. it's action adventure set in space. i'm not saying you would like it, but it's none of the things that made the original nerdy (or compelling).
Post a Comment